Task Force to Reimagine the Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Welcome everyone. My name is Denali and there are a lot of familiar faces here, but some of you that I haven't met, um, my team at Denali Daniels and Associates, uh, I've got Isabella here as well as Monica and Edward, um, will be holding space for you today. So, um, we're really happy to see all your faces in person and thankful to have the opportunity to, um, have some space for an in-person dialogue since we've had some online activity, but it's never the same, right? I hope you can agree with that. Um, today is really just about grounding in where we're at.

We won't be getting decisional, but we will start to shape and take the temperature of where everyone is at in terms of a potential Public Safety Advisory Commission. So we've got an agenda that will pretty much follow a process that we've used with other groups that have differences of opinion, and the process was sort of find those places where we have alignment and then start to get clear on where we don't have alignment so we can start charting a path around. We only have 2 meetings. We've got today and next Thursday, and so we'll have to have some agreement when we're done this time next Thursday at noon. So, um, but before we dive in, um, I actually have a personal story that I think makes a lot of sense for this group.

So I've been doing this work for about— I mean, it might be more like 14 years at this point, but in 2013, one of my first clients was actually a group of massage therapists. And so while you're wondering why I would start talking about massage therapists at a public safety meeting, really doesn't have anything to do with the topic. But the process is the same. So for them, they really wanted to have a state board that represented their industry. And they had some very personal and real reasons why that was important to them.

One being that in Alaska at the time, because their profession was not recognized, they were unable to bill insurance. So many of them were actually working in their pipe crafters. And so So we got in a room together and started talking about what this would look like if they had a board and if we had to pass the legislature. There were all of these steps that they would need to take, but what became very clear was that there were a lot of differences of opinion and it was easy for it to get tense. And this is, this is their livelihood.

And there were questions about authority and oversight and cost. There were folks that really wanted high standards, and then there were others that were really concerned that maybe this was going to be a burden for them and the livelihood. So in the end, they were able to find a proposal that they could all live with, but more importantly, one that could also get across the finish line and pass the legislature. And it did. It passed both bodies almost unanimously with one no vote which was then-Senator Mike Phillip, which is a tale for another time.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] In any event, again, I don't share this story because there is alignment between the topics of massage therapy and the topics of public safety. I share it because I feel like there is a lot of parallel with the process. So I'm going to take a bunch of our time together today My hope is that we can really ground ourselves in what are the decisions that we can make about the process and this new commission, um, so that we can tackle those public safety issues in a way that is more long-term and sustainable. So hopefully that grounds us in our process today. So before we dive in too much deeper, I'd like to go ahead and do some quick introductions.

And we've got a nice— we've got a lot of cool chairs here. So there's a microphone coming around. Since we're a little short on time, we're just going to have you share your name. And if you're with an organization, share that too. And if you're not, that's totally fine.

So let's just hear who's in the room and say hello. Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Jeff Chai. I'm an ex-president and founder of a small business owner. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Anna Brawley on the assembly representing the West Side, and I'll also say the third member in our project, Cameron Perez-Rodilla, also West Side, is out of state so he can't participate.

Hi everyone, Felix Rivera, Anchorage Assemblyman representing Midtown. Rich Kerner on behalf of Alaska Black Caucus and the Alaska Coalition for Justice.

Junior Lopez, former of the Coalition for Early Homelessness. I take food to camps. Randy Braver with Awake. Erin Jackson Hill, resident of Alaska, Alaska Coalition for Justice. Emily Block with Native Movement and Alaska Coalition for Justice.

Mandy Bremner, Native President and Deputy Director of Native Movement. Mercedes Arsenica, Wesley Kudristan, and a member of Alaska Coalition for Justice and Alaska Public Interest Research Group. Hi, good morning. Katie Baldwin Johnson, Alaska Environmental Trust Authority.

Sean Case, speak up please. Carol Evans, Anchorage Police Department Employees Association. Kim Brash, Anchorage Health Department.

Thank you. Thanks, Isabelle. So let's talk about our agenda and let's dive right in. Thanks for being here. So first up, I'm going to just cover some ground rules, and I actually wanted to be very intentional and got pretty excited about around those and decided to go to book checks.

So I'm gonna go over them relatively quickly. They're, you know, they're trauma-informed and so they're kind of important, but I'm not going to take a deep dive on all of them, okay? So we have— we focus on the task, and I already talked a little bit about that, right? We're not going to solve public safety issues in this group today, but hopefully we'll create create a path forward or a process for doing that. Multiple truths can exist at once.

Speak from your own experiences and honor others' experiences. Disagreement is allowed, but disrespect is not. So we will not be disrespectful in this space. No one is required to share more than they want to. And I hope that if you have a packet, that there are sticky notes in your packet.

If there's anyone that doesn't feel comfortable talking on the microphone, you've got sticky notes and just kind of jot your thoughts down and hold them up, and one of my team members will come get them. We'll make sure that folks hear what you have to add to the conversation. And we're mindful of power differences in the room. We practice generous listening, so that's sort of active listening. Listen to actually hear what's being said, not to plan what you're going to say next.

We focus on ideas, not on individuals. This is a group process. I like this one: step up and step back. So if there's someone that you know that you'd like to talk, maybe emphasize listening today. And if you're someone that typically doesn't say as much, maybe you want to add something that you wouldn't otherwise add.

So find yourself in that role today. And we assume good intent from everyone, and intent is that impact. And confidentiality. So what's said in this room It is being recorded, but to the extent that we have good intentions about sharing other people's personal stories, that's my request. And I also want to add, you've got in your packets the submissions that were provided online to help inform this process.

We have.

Included names in those, and that was intentional. So to the extent we can in a public process, which I also think is part of conversation today, we want to respect that confidentiality and just respect personal stories. So what leads the room is discussion about process and policy and high-level recommendations. Oh, okay. And then last but not least, and we're going to stay solution-oriented.

So ground rules today— are there any ground rules? Yes.

All right, well, Denali, what are we doing today with our time? I make it into—. Um, so we're going to use what's called an ORID, and it's a 4-step process to get to that email that I was sharing with you. Here we are as a group, you know, we have different perspectives in the room. We've been working on this for many months, and now it's time to get real and start aligning, figuring out and documenting when— where do we align and where do we not align?

Actually really saying that, like, and getting clear So that's the goal today. So the ORED process that we like to use—. Where's the ORED? Oh, it's right there— is basically our agenda. So we did the introductions, and then we're going to start with just the facts.

So we're going to have a conversation. What are the facts? We'll have the microphone coming around, but if you would rather write something down on a sticky note, that's the opportunity to have. And the question is, what do you know? What are the facts?

What's still unclear, right? Like, there's still questions. So let's start to just talk about the facts as we share them as a group. And then, um, then we'll debrief a little bit about how this makes us feel. So we'll, we'll spend a little bit of time just reflecting on the realities of what we have before us.

And then I'm going to jump to what does this mean? And I think what happens sometimes is we, we call those facts. So I know I do when I'm participant using this process, I jump to the what does it all mean and I want to make decisions before the group is ready. So that's part of being intentional with the process that we are using today is let's start with the facts, let's reflect on them, and then let's talk as a group about what they mean. And once we've had that conversation, I anticipate we'll spend most of our time there.

That's what I'm going to aim for with our time together since it's going to go by quick, and we should We should see some themes at that point, and at that point, those themes can hopefully create some framework for us to know what our work is between now and next week. That's it. So that's our agenda. We have one thing left at the very end. We have a live poll.

We're going to take the temperature in the room from that online question about support for a public safety commission, and that's going to be on the screen. And if folks don't like live polls and you want to do the sticky note thing, that —game plan for you. So are we all good with the agenda? You ready to dive in? Okay.

Did I skip something? Oh, I forgot about Isabel's presentation. You can do it. Okay, good morning everybody. I just wanted to explain what's in these handy white folders that you were handed when you signed in.

So within this white folder, Denali mentioned the sticky notes, so those are available to you. If you have anything you want to jot down, raise your hand and one of our team members will come and grab it. We'll also use those for the live poll at the end. If you have any issues or technology issues with the QR code, we can help you with that too. Also in your folders, you will find a copy of the agenda today.

You also have that on the wall. We also have 2 copies printed out for you. One is of the overview document, which provides some background and some of the, um, needs and, um, analysis of the public input so far. So that's available for your review. We also have a packet of the summary input received from the public input form that we've had open the last few weeks.

So those are some of the responses that we've received, including a letter submitted by the Alaska Coalition for Justice, as well as a letter from a community member. So that's available for your review. These two documents are also available on the task force webpage. Thanks, thanks, Isabella. And these are available for your reference to refer to as you do the discussion today.

Yes, yes, speak a little louder. Okay, I thought I was being too loud. Okay, well, I'm glad you brought mics. Can you hear me? How's this?

Good. Okay, I'm getting thumbs up. Um, we never want to yell, right? Um, so we're going to try not to do that, but, uh All right, if I forget about the mic, let me know. All right, um, so what Isabella mentioned about the packets, these are really important.

So let's kind of ground ourselves in the process. You all have been working on this for a while, and some of you even put pen to paper on a proposal. Um, so I would encourage us to— and those of you that have actually been doing some of this work, I really want to commend you and thank you for all of that effort. So think of all of the work so far, the packets that capture the submissions from this recent process, but also going back to the community session and the, the overview paper that summarizes that whole first process where we had 84 people that provided their comments online, and that was summarized in some themes. We've also had a community work session at the Squamish Rec Center that resulted in some themes and started putting some sideboards around what is the public safety system.

And then most recently, we had two information sessions to kick off this last phase, and in doing so, we heard from officials that were part of leading the public safety system, and then we also heard from some other states. So Nate Cole and some other folks that are working for municipal boards that have some information to offer. So all of that is data, right? So now as I walk us through this process, we— I encourage you to just think back from all of this and what stands out to you. What we aren't going to do today is we're not going to pull up one proposal.

So that doesn't diminish that that proposal is one piece of data and a very big one, and so super important to the process. At the end of this process, our team will have, I hope, what we need to develop a set of high-level recommendations that we can then come back to this group and discuss and actually make decisions on. I think the important part of the process that, that we need to remember is that they're recommendations. So after we're done with our work here, they go to policymakers and decisions need to be made in another space. So part of our charge is to get those recommendations as closely aligned with what we hope the commission would look like, but also what could get through that process, right?

So that's part of the charge. Um, so I'm just going to get us started with objective. Um, so with objective, let's think back to all of the data. You've got some of it in front of you. Hopefully many of you remember these meetings that we were hosting.

Um, if you want— where is the other one? Let's go ahead and maybe can we go around with the mic? If you want to use the mic, you can. Actually, can you do mic? Can you be a runner?

We have two mics. Have we tested them? Oh, okay. Well, Monica's the microphone person. And so what do we know from all of that?

When you think back to the work that you participated in, whether it was a meeting, whether it was putting a submission in, maybe it was a Zoom call information session, maybe you were a panelist. What do we know? What's clear? There's a lot of different ideas about what this should look like. All right, I think I heard there's a lot of ideas about what this should look like.

Truth, 100%. Okay, I saw another hand. Is that Darryl? Let's, let's get the mics coming around. We do have some folks that need mics.

I think it's been made very clear in all the meetings and the comments and the feedback that there is a strong desire community for a reimagined Public Safety Commission, for a body, an independent body. There's support for a body. And if, if you don't agree with something that ends up on the wall here, let's, let's state that. Okay, and there's a mic right next to you, just because it was convenient. Oh, sorry.

I think also What I heard from all the conversations that I've been in, right, public safety is a broad definition. I know we've talked a lot about policing, but there's also.

So other aspects of public safety that the community sees as a holistic process. Yeah, thanks, that's a great one. So public safety is holistic, there's also some specifics when we talk about policing. Nice. Gina.

So I could go on this for a very long time. I think the basic question to this is what is public safety as a whole, similar to what Ms. Brawley said, and how do you see it? Because, you know, The people that have the most interaction with police are typically people that are outside their homes, and that's sort of not been covered by this. People are living through a very narrow lens of, uh, people have these interactions typically from any number of calls, uh, that are dealing with— within civilization, that the people outside are marginalized and those most vulnerable, they're least likely to report things that happen and they don't get access to things. And so their safety is surviving.

So I just wanted to throw that out there. I love what you just said, Janine. Since we're talking about, um, kind of what do we know and what needs more clarity, would you put that on that it needs more clarity, um, that voice, that homelessness voice needs more clarity in this process? Is that what you would say? Okay, great.

How does that work as well? Is there another hand? I think it's important— can you show the mic— to make sure that you put the independent in that body piece. So support for an independent body, not, you know, I mean, we want to make sure it's clear that it needs to be separate. Okay, so there are some voices that wanted to be independent.

Yeah, and making that clear. Okay, can you say more about what you mean by independent? Separate, different, I mean, not the same makeup, that it's its own.

Separate from the makeup of the police. Okay, got it. Thank you for that clarification. All right, I think I can add to that. I know exactly what you mean, Celeste.

It has to have teeth. It has to have, uh, independence to act separately and apart from the police department or the municipality, and it needs to have civilian input. Okay, so can you say more about what you— when you say teeth? I mean, it has to be— it has to be a quasi-investigative body. It needs to have the ability to—.

The authority. Thank you. The authority to act as a separate body, separate and apart from the police department or the municipality. Okay, thank you. Maybe some language that we can add to that is just making sure that it's not advisory.

I think that that's clear. That is one thing that we know from the interviews, that a reimagined public safety commission needs to be non-advisory. Okay, well, I mean, I guess I, I don't know. Does everyone agree with that? And then we're just talking facts.

So maybe a reframe would be there's a decision around that authority, that there's a question mark about that authority. Does that need more clarity? Not with you individually, but as a group. Yeah, it's a key question.

I think the question I think what Nancy clarified more specifically is, are there avenues for being advisory that can get to the intent of having a routine of shaping public safety policy? And I don't know the answer to that. I know we've had a lot of concerns about how it did or didn't work well in the past. And suggestions for improving it now, but I'm not entirely convinced that that's not possible. We haven't actually done that research.

Okay. I loved how you put it, and I don't know if I can say it back. Are— have we explored the way an advisory might have teeth? It was something like that, yeah? You said it better.

I think so. I think if we just go with it can't be advisory, then that's a decision that sounds like made, and I don't know that it has. I know that there's some strong opinions about that, but I haven't fully explored improving the advisory function of the group that would still get to the goal of shaping public safety policy. Okay, so we still have a decision about authority. Cool.

I've got, um, so go ahead, Thea, and then I've got Cheryl over here. Yeah, just to kind of say a little bit more about that, I think When you look at the document, the overview document, so you look at kind of the historical things that have existed in the past, you know, we've had one— we've had one version that was quite separate from the municipality, the community police task force, and so there's the kind of pros and cons of that approach, and then there's the Public Safety Advisory Commission, which also existed in the past, and there's pros and cons of that. And I think from what I've heard from our discussions through this process is neither of those is exactly what we want. And I think there's a desire for an additional authority that neither of those had. And that to me seems like the question that Katie's asking is like, what exactly does that look like?

But I guess I just want to I feel like we have come to an agreement that being entirely separate from the Muni isn't great because then you kind of fall into the predicament of, you know, just being another nonprofit or another community organization that doesn't have that kind of official capacity. So that's not perfect. But being only advisory, I think, doesn't get to some of the things like you were raising. So To me, that's where we're at. Like, those are the key decisions that need to be made.

Is—. I feel like we've made a decision that it can't be totally separate. So I guess I maybe want to go back to what you were saying. I misspoke. I agree with you.

Okay, so, um, I'm just going to ground us where we're at. I feel like we're getting down here into interpretive, um, and so, um, the decision about authority has yet to be made. I think that That's a fact. Yeah, and so Cheryl's got the mic and then we're gonna come over here.

What we do know is, um, if you don't understand the branches of public safety and you are a civilian making bad decisions about it, it's problematic. That we do know. What we do know about being independent is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because that's where your money is. No matter how much we talk about this, there has to be a funding source to keep this committee, or whatever we want to call it, alive. So how do you fund and feed the baby?

So Cheryl, let's put that into a couple of words. I think when I heard both of you correct me, um, so I think first of all, understanding is a goal. So civilian understanding of the system is something we all want. And if anybody disagrees with that, please let me know. You tell me, does that kind of get to the first one?

That was very basic to the first one. Okay. And then cost is an issue. Yes. Do we know— do we agree that's an issue?

Okay. Did I get—. Did we get both of them up there? All right, nicely done. I think I need more clarity, um, when I'm reading just the comments and proposals, what the actual objectives and goals of this council, commission, whatever we're going to call it, is going to be.

Having been a part of a number of them and have run a number of them, it's really easy to get pulled into a thousand other different directions without a very specific charge of this group is going to look at these three things, you know, or whatever that is.

Clarity on the overarching mission, which by the way is something we've got to figure out next week, right? I saw a hand over here and I'll come back to y'all. Yeah, under what do we know, I think we heard, um, especially clearly during the community workshop, that we want more accountability and transparency from the police department. Accountability and transparency, all right, from the police department. Okay, so yes, in principle.

Are you up next, Darryl, and then back to Jane? I think, you know, when we look at the old community task force, we look at the former public safety advisor, Commission. There were good things with both of them and bad, so I think we can pull from both of them. But the key to making this successful is going to be the enabling ordinance, having the powers, the duty, the authority, the mission clearly defined in code. And as far as independence, you can have a municipal agency or body that has a great deal of independence.

I think we should look at Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter.

0.60, Which is Office of the Ombudsman, and Title V, which is the Equal Rights Commission. So these are two municipal offices, entities, that have a great deal of independence. So this— any potential commission could also have a great deal of independence. But the key to making it successful is going to be the enabling ordinance. So the enabling ordinance might— it almost feels like that's after the decisional for this group because we're, we're probably not going to get that technical, we've already got some technical suggestions in front of us.

Super important. Um, Jamie, go ahead. Um, so there are two things that we wanted to cover. So, uh, advocacy— I stayed out for a long time, partly because I was not speaking for two years, but partly because if you go and put yourself out And you say things, and somebody likes, they take what you say, you know, they give you a thumbs up, pat on the head, good job. If you say the wrong thing, you create an enemy, and people ignore you.

And half the time with these boards, they are appointees, and then people in positions or in leadership. And so large segments just get cut off from there. And so where I'm going with this, so around November 2023, there was the House of Slipped Experience Advisory Board, which was stood up, and 5 people were on that, and they were supposed to discuss lived experience and ways of implementing and helping to determine policy and give advice. And they met 4 or 5 times, and I went to some of those meetings, and then they just stopped in April of 2024. I'm like, what the fuck's going on here?

And I didn't find out until afterwards, but there was a lady named Sarah Short, like an immigrant. She essentially tracked me down when I was taking 130, 150 miles to cutting. She wanted to talk to me. I talked to her for 5 hours. She asked me I want to testify at the same— I said no because of the reasons I just stated.

If they like what you say, yes. If no, create an enemy. But anyways, what ends up happening shortly after this, that board receives an email from two people saying don't meet anymore. You get to July of last year, they essentially said, well, because they're not meeting, because of whatever, we need to go ahead and just shut this thing down before October 30th when it's set to be sunset. And then since that point in time, any of our policies have come in place which essentially have made it very difficult on people outside that if that board existed, they probably would say don't do this.

And so the question becomes, is it— whatever this board is for public safety, uh, is it going to be free of influence from people that may not necessarily agree with the recommendations that come from it? Is it going to have an independent authority to do what it does, or is somebody just going to send an email and say, no, we're just disbanding the thing? Um, because obviously nobody with lived experience is really influencing policy right now. Uh, thank you. Thanks, Jamie.

I heard two things. I heard lived experience, and I heard, um, the lived experience voice, but also sort of this faith in, in the long-term process sticking around, right? That independence. Okay.

Yeah, thanks. So just briefly on that last point that Jamie raised, um, What do we know? We do know that the only thing that really prevents something like that from happening is having this body enshrined in the charter. That's the only thing that would prevent future political bodies from stripping the body away. Does everyone know what the charter is?

Can you just say a little? Yeah, so the municipal charter is essentially the constitution for the municipality. Okay, so what do we know? The status quo, what we have now, is not working for anyone. Yeah, lived experience of homelessness, trans world, people of color, all of us.

It's not working for all of us. White people, it's not working. We need to change it. Now what I need to know is whether the people sitting around here are strong enough and are brave enough to make change that needs to happen really soon. Thanks.

All right, thank you, Taffy.

So, um, I think just—. I—. This is a little pedestrian, but just— I, I work really closely with the HAN Commission, which, um, the Health Committee— sorry, the Health Department supports. And just to speak to kind of what Jeannie was saying, I think once So like that commission had kind of a little bit fallen apart. Like there just weren't active commissioners.

They didn't really have a good relationship with the administration of the assembly. Like it just wasn't very effective. And then in the last, I'd say, year, they've got a new chair. They've filled all the commissioner seats. There's a department, a division within the health department that supports it.

So like the infrastructure is in place to make it happen. And then I think to what Jamie's saying in terms of like effectiveness, that's— it does take a little bit to figure out, okay, how are we going to run this thing? What are we going to focus on? But for example, one thing that came up at the last meeting was that one of its functions according to, you know, the ordinance, like Darryl was saying, is to advise the administration and the assembly on topics related to housing, homelessness, and community development. So So like Kim and I just went to the chair a couple days ago and said, here's a topic we need advice on.

Like, we don't know exactly what to do about this. And so I just want to put that forward as a, as a way that I think when you do have like a good commission set up, a department that's helping staff it, the agency's like interested in getting that input, that it's super helpful. And so I just want to say like It's not that we don't have, like, anything that works or any way to do this, but it does take that kind of concerted effort to both, like, get it going and then keep it going. And it— just like everything, it comes down to the people. Like, what Tophi was just saying, it's like, you gotta get the right people in there who are gonna make it really meaningful.

So, if— I'm gonna be pedestrian. It takes work to keep it going. Well, yeah, it is. It's like it has to be set up properly, it's got to be like willingness, you've got to be a good leader. I mean, it takes a lot to make it work.

And the people. Yeah, yeah, the leadership. Okay, I saw one over here. Well, this just follows up on what I heard, but I think it's important too that we all realize and know that representation matters. And so the makeup of the group, um, I just I think back to what Darryl said about the community relations task force, um, and the fact that when it was created as the minority community relations task force, it was represented by the different diverse groups out there.

And so I feel that that is something that is definitely needed in the makeup of this group.

We're over here, then we're going to come to Cheryl. And I, I'm just hearing a little bit more nicer how we're feeling. And we're going to keep talking about the same stuff, but we're going to start moving to the right. Okay, so go ahead. I would also be interested in clarity around compensation for membership, as well as being to the end and things like that.

We ask a lot of people on a volunteer basis, and it doesn't doesn't necessarily take into account the real cost that they incur to then participate, especially if we want community involvement. Can we consider compensation for those with lived experience who serve? That's a very good point. If I'm part of a group, I'm probably being paid to be there. Chief Payton said, "You're paid to be there." But what about everybody else?

I love that. Nicely done. All right, Cher, what you got? Yeah, um, for clarity, I'd like to find out if this is the super committee or super council for all public safety, or will it have subcommittees that have specialized— and of course, uh, public involvement for police department, fire department, the ambulance, the healthcare that, that is the broader, um, feel that I get for what would be financed by the municipality. And the subcommittees would give me ease because I know that there will be more specialized— or citizens that are more interested in different areas get to be focused in the spaces that impact them most than having a catch-all with just a little bit.

I prefer to have a few things and go deep than a lot of things and go wide.

Okay, so all these hands are coming up now. Um, all right, I'm gonna see over— okay, let's just take stock. Everybody has—. All together? Okay, so we've got 4.

I'm just gonna make my way around, or go ahead, you get them over there. And then we are going to transition, so I'm hearing a little bit of like, you guys are just ready, so all right, let's do it.

Yeah, I think I just want to say, um, I think for anything that we come up with to be truly successful, we need to realize that there needs to be support and buy-in from all the stakeholders. And so I think if you step back from that also, to get there, you have to make sure that you hear the voices of all the.

Stakeholders. Yeah. Okay. This is about the statute. Who and—.

Thanks. This is in the clarity column, and these are two things that I would be thinking about having worked on creating multiple boards and what that looks like. The first one is going back to the who, the representation. These are just questions that I think we need to— we will need to drill down into. How much do we get specific or required about that?

For example, you can have a board with all designated seats, you could have a board that says no more than 2 from the same perspective, right? There's different ways to design it, but I think that's the big question is, um, how, how much do we codify that representation? What's that look like? So that's a question we'll look into. And then the other one is, um, I think getting to kind of what this board does or what the authority is.

To me, the broad buckets are, um, weighing in on policy, uh, and this is right whether it's advisory or has other powers, weighing in on policy, uh, reviewing current, um, incidents or cases or things like that.

Or, and that would be while it's going on, having some role in that. And then regardless of those two other things, reviewing things in past tense, you know, like a debrief or an after-action or something that's— and I see those as three different roles. Can [Speaker:DR. MELISSA GILLIAM] you say them again so that we can make sure we get them up there? Yeah, [Speaker:DR. LISA MILLER] so the authority would be weighing in on policy, again, public safety policy, engagement in some way or involvement in active cases or incidents, and then, like, while they are having some role while it is happening, and then separately, maybe they're having some involvement in incidents after the fact. And there's probably other things, but I think those are 3 kind of broad areas that we've seen, and these other examples, etc., and that's just to kind of drill down a little bit.

Nice. Thanks for summarizing. And do you mean investigations or just—. I'm keeping it broad. Yeah.

So let's hear from the final 2. This is just the start.

Not the end. Um, so what else do we have when we talk about what we know and what needs more clarity? So, um, what we know— the one of the main reasons that we're here and that this task force was started is because we had an overwhelming amount of officer-involved shootings last year. And as Taffy mentioned, this system isn't working right now. So one of the reasons that we're here in this task force is because there was huge outcry from the community and how things are going now, and it was due to those officer involved shootings.

Okay, so help us with the bullet. I think I can help. I was gonna— along those lines, I think if we come back to the intention and ground ourselves in why we're here reimagining Public Safety Advisory Commission, it's trust and it's building trust. And there's been a lot of talk of things that happened in the past and things that—. Learnings that we can take.

But I think at the heart of that, this incidents occurred, there was decision making, there wasn't transparency around that decision making. And even though, you know, there's been some steps, we have a new chief, he's doing what he can from his role, there's still— we haven't built up that trust with the community. And I think what we know is the community has spoken really loudly that this trust needs to be here and it needs to be community-led in order for an opportunity for that trust to be rebuilt. So, Amanda, I think that was a really nice transition to statement that you made. I was actually wondering when somebody was going to bring up trust here, so nicely done.

So we've got need for building trust and transparency within the community. Did we capture Emily what you said? Is that correct? Okay, so let's, let's just kind of take a minute here. Um, when we think about what we know, we've got a lot of ideas about what this should look like.

There is support for an independent body, but the details of what that means aren't completely clear. Public safety is holistic. Civilian understanding is a goal. Funding is an issue. There's a desire for accountability and transparency from the police department.

A key to success is the enabling ordinance and inclusion in the municipal charter.

Then it has to be set up right and have the right people, and representation matters. And there needs to be support and buy-in from all stakeholders. And there's a need for building trust and transparency within the community. And then when we think about what needs more clarity, which could be— some of this could be homework between now and next week. Homelessness always needs clarity, more clarity.

Decisions about authority. Clarity on objectives and the overarching mission. Clarity on independence. Clarity on compensation for participation.

All public safety or specialized committees or subcommittees. So I think scope. How specific are we about membership representation?

Oh yeah. And then we've got an authority, kind of an authority bucket here. There's a policy, public safety. I'm sorry, tell me what that said.

Public safety policy, engagement in active incidents, and incidents after the fact. So clarity on what that means.

Yeah, not to just state the obvious, but I also think of what we know, and I guess I, I guess I think maybe this hasn't been said clearly enough in this is none of us want to see officers off the streets, not the police department, not anyone in our community. None of us want to see domestic violence. None of us want to see many, many neighbors unsheltered. Like, none of us want to see a pedestrian a month getting killed on our roads. Like, none of us want that.

And the fact is though that solving any of those is is, is really tricky. Even understanding what are all the contributing factors to each of those big issues that we're facing, it's really tricky. And so to me, like, that's something we know— we all want less of all those things. And what's not clear is how we do that. And that's why we have to work together, because, you know, Chief Case can do all the things he can do, but that might not solve the problem, right?

So to me, that's the biggest deal. It's like, how do we actually just get working together to actually do all the things? Because it's not just one thing. Any of those issues has 5 or 6 things that we have to do over the long term, you know, plus some deep underlying things that are really hard to move. So it's It's like, how do we just get to the point?

And I think going back to trust, that's where it comes back to trust. We have to trust that we all have the same goals and we want to get there together. And so, like, to me, those are like the biggest deals of this whole stuff. And then all the things we just listed are like the, you know, the kind of nuts and bolts of how we get there. But like, the fact is, like, we have the same goal, we don't know how to get there, and we need each other.

Thank you. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Sorry, real quick, I just wanted to add to something Thea just said about officer-involved shootings, and I just want to remind everyone too that the police officers that we're talking about are also our community members. They have families here in Anchorage, they They're raising their children. They live in the community just the same as we do on this task force and you do. And so it can be easy in a room to talk about changing policy and their training and affecting their, their jobs, but remember that they are the stakeholders as well.

So keep that in mind as we talk about that, that the police officers have to live this every day. None of them want to be involved in officer shootings. Nobody signed up to be involved in an officer-involved shooting. They're here to protect the public. They hope that that never happens.

But again, I just want to remind you, and then Cheryl talked about this, I think it's an important note that there is a fiscal note attached to this, and that has— I've heard very little discussion about that, but to do a commission like this is very expensive, and that's taxpayer money. And we're talking about a municipal budget right now that it's going to be a flat budget next year with very little extra money in it for anything. And I just think that's a consideration to talk about.

Thanks, Darryl. So what I heard— I heard two things, and I think some of them might be up there, but I just want to see them back and make sure I'm getting this. So the first one is the stakeholders include our police force, and that that's an important voice as well. And then the cost. Okay, great.

Uh, Terry? Uh, yeah, I just wanted to follow up with what Theo was saying. How are we going to do this, right?

Communication style for all these two is like, we get orders and we go do it. Uh, which I am a working class person, uh, I'm very resentful when I don't follow orders or I do it wrong. I'm shocked, I'm, uh, like, hurt. And there's a huge amount of stuff from military families, you know, where I come from. Um, if you make a mistake or you get noticed for anything going on in your family or anything going on in your work, you get noticed.

You get punished. So people don't ask for mental health for a lot of reasons right around there. Um, but like, how we're actually going to talk to each other— we don't have that culture of dialogue. Dialogue's a whole different thing. We're actually listening to each other, and we're not judging what other people are saying.

We're listening, and we're putting that truth in the room. And all of them are true, they just don't agree with each other right now because you don't have a full picture. None of us have a full picture, and that's what we're having a hard time holding because we're used to getting just the information. We go to school, the teacher is right, we're wrong. If we're wrong, we're wrong, right?

But that's because we don't have all the truths in the room. And if you talk about emotional truths, that's a piece too. We don't do that either. There's a lot of things we don't do, and if we don't do those things, we're not going to have the energy to make anything change. We're not going to connect with each other because we're not an individual biologically, intellectually, all of that.

We are not individuals. We are very interdependent on each other. Our lives are very interdependent on language and how we talk to each other and how we culturally create with each other. So how are we going to do this? We have to take a lot of things into account.

And we're here on one thing, on task, on public safety. But what is our idea and definition of safety when some of the children are starving right now, when some of the kids and the people growing up in homeless families right now— what are we doing about our collective? Because that matters. We're all going to be punished together. That's a military understanding.

If one of us is weak, all of us are going to be weak.

Terry, can I? Yeah, and I think really think about all our different communities. How do we raise their voice? How do we leverage voice? How do we leverage our listening ears and work that?

How do we leverage our heart that's going to make our feet and our hands move? All those are big questions. That's a big question I have. And I know that we don't quite have the set right set up here. We have the people who showed up because they came.

We got the people who show up who have jobs, who know how the system works. And a lot of other people, it's any work to me for them. And they're not here. And they have no voice. So how are we going to make this work?

And people who have the problem, they have a definite investment in making things change. Are they in the room? Are we listening to them? Are we giving them what they need? How are we going to do that, right?

Well, some people think that they need more. I don't know how that happened, but that's what's called saboriwan. Thank you.

Terry, I, with your permission, um, some of the things that you just said, I feel like get us into our reflective, which is the question: how does this all sit with us? How does this make us feel? And I heard a lot of emotion and caring in what you just said. And one thing that I heard was that we've got some missing voices in the room. And so, with your With your permission, can I have Isabella put that down as our first bullet under the question, how do we feel about all this?

So when, when I was reading all of this and we've added some more, how does this sit with us? What is our emotional response to this? So I shared some things with Terry, and so obviously there are certain information asymmetries at play here. That there are certain individuals and certain organizations protecting interests, and there's, uh, more power at one level than the other. And so the disparities here, how do you change that?

I'll just give you an example. So right here, we're talking about officer-involved shootings. That seems to be the driver of this. Um, and so another thing, like, Michael Patterson isn't here. I don't agree with that guy on everything in various ways, but, you know, I listen sometimes.

I'm like, That's absolutely wrong. And, uh, he showed up at the first meeting. He hasn't been back, I think partially because he was invited to the table. And so most of the people that were invited to the table were people in positions of power and leadership that make certain money within certain 501(c)(3)s who were working for the meeting, or in any various aspects. And so those were people that were cherry-picked and chosen.

Um, but just to talk about the policy thing, so, um, you know, right now certain policies are at play where it's now a crime to pitch a tent outside. It's now a crime to essentially, uh, start a fire to stay warm. Or to cook food. And while people say it's about the schools, playgrounds, social shelter facilities, they've eliminated all public space pretty much where you can pitch a tent or sign up shelter. And so, you know, I know any number of people that are having their tents taken, or their animals taken, spaced all over the place.

And essentially they've got no place to go. They're sleeping on the ground. And does that so well with public safety? Probably not. But that's not sort of the Overton window of this thing where you set the realm of political discourse and then you shape it.

To the preset narrative and idea of what you're looking for when there are all these other people over here that it's turds that cannot get here and they don't have a voice. They're worried about survival. And so if, if you're looking at safety, um, you know, I'm not anti-law enforcement by any means. I've got family that are military, I've got family that are law enforcement. So when I say that, I'm being honest.

But I'm looking at the aspect of abatements and you've displaced people homeless and And, you know, maybe you think you're breaking up some criminal aspect that's in there, but it just moves one block east or west, and you know, a lot of good people end up having their stuff destroyed or stripped from them, and then cycles of trauma start again. And then when you attach law enforcement to outreach and the traumatizer is supposed to be the one burning his surfaces, that just induces additional cycles on him. And so, uh, I think you have to reimagine public safety with how you're dealing with not just interactions with people, you know, that are living in houses, but the people outside. And it starts with separating law enforcement from outreach, uh, and then looking at how you try to get the best possible outcome out of bad outcomes. And part of that is sanctioned camps.

So can I put anything up on this reflective wall for you? Uh, reflective. So how does this make you feel when you think about this? And let's try and focus on the process. So, so I, I think You know, someone said it, the focus is more policies, sort of incidents, investigations, after-action, but the reflective is it needs to be not just people that are, you know, involved in officer— the scope of it shouldn't just be officer-involved shootings, but how you can influence policies that impact everyone, you know, and it's not just You know, it's just the— the Taylor scope there, but things where you reduce physical harms, mental harms, economic harms, and it takes a lot of planning, but there are ways to do it.

Thanks. I want to get that up there. I'm going to take my mic to you tomorrow, Mark. I've got some ideas. I'm going to hand it over here.

I've got to see a couple hands.

So I'm reflecting on a lot of feedback here and going back to the ground rule of like more than one thing can be true at once, right? So I am a law enforcement wife and I have a 14-year-old Black son, right? I work with victims and see how the systems do not work for them every day, and I've worked so closely with law enforcement and see every day how hard how hard they work to make it for victims. So I think just making sure we keep a level of humanity in our conversations, I think, is really important. And as I was listening to some of the feedback, it also goes back to like an original kind of issue with not just this city but every city, is law enforcement officers are being pulled into so many types of calls that is not, you know, a response to a crime, right?

And I think our city has started working on that with like developing mobile crisis teams and stuff like that, but the reality is, is if we call law enforcement, you're going to get a law enforcement response, and that is a specifically trained type of response. And expecting, uh, an officer to be an expert in every type of response and social ill that we're all dealing with, I don't think it's really fair either.

So I heard, um, we need to remind ourselves of the humanity and recognize that law enforcement is responding to many different things that may or may not arguably fit into our definition of oral safety. There's some work happening, but that's what we all need. Nice. Okay, I guess that's a good segue to kind of some of the points or feelings I've had on this. Um, I think, yeah, there's maybe an— my feelings are like an assumption.

That people are not being seen as people. And on the point I think made by Daryl about officers, I mean, I've seen good work happen before. I've seen even— I mean, I think there is the argument from the, uh, from an opposing side that the people that you serve don't feel like they're being treated as humans or that they are being considered in that. It's not to demonize everybody, but it is to look at the fact that that's why we have some of that trust, um, broken or damaged that is in need of that repair. Um, but I do want to bring up one of my favorite James Baldwin quotes: I love America more than any other country in the world, and exactly for this reason I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

So when we criticize our police department or we criticize government systems This isn't just a mean to burn it all down. I feel like at our most emotional and angry parts, maybe that's how it does come out. But these are resources that are meant to serve the public. These are resources meant to serve the public. And while it is valuable that we do know there is trust in some of the community and its police department and its government Other government entities, I think we should include the fact of fire department, mental health resources.

This is all a holistic point. But if we are looking to them to serve us, to protect us, or to do these certain things, and then we raise the question of, we have a certain crisis, can I even call on them? Is it even worth it? We have to look at why people even feel like that's a lost cause. And while some people may champion the work that's being done as being absolutely like, we don't need to change that, or you're going to destroy— you're going to destroy good work— you have plenty of other people, including people not nearly represented enough at 10:30 during a work week to actually be here or have the means to get here, um, that some people may see them as heroes and other people see us like we are the ones that we have to avoid.

You know that, um, minorities and disenfranchised people have a long history of not knowing how to trust their government resources or feeling like they can, and then they get the rug pulled out from under them, and then we go 50 steps backwards. So I, I just want to highlight that I think everybody knows that people are not being treated like people, and I think we can understand that. I think Police officers have an— and people who work in any sort of direct services have jobs that are unimaginable. And I've seen that firsthand, including law enforcement officers. And when I went on a ride-along 2 months ago, the first thing they told us was— told me was, we majority handle mental health calls, but we don't know how to handle them.

Exact words from your officer, a 7-year veteran field training officer who was training somebody that day. So I think we understand that, but we need that humanity. But we also need to see the humanity within those resources. Where is the humanity of getting that accessibility? Where is the humanity and the cultural sensitivities that need to be happening between community stakeholders, uh, or community and police?

So I think we can all understand we're all people here, right? But Let's get past that now, okay? We know police officers are people. Do police officers know that they're people? Yes, they should.

Black police. Deanna, I had your hand up. I want to get us talking about interpreting, so if we're ready for that and you guys are okay with us just doing it over there, I'd love to just move on down. Yeah, I just wanted to point to page 8 of the proposal where they talk about areas to be overseen because I think it really gets at what Mercedes was just saying. What you're saying, because to me this is a really good list.

There's one thing I would add, which is like safety of roads, especially for pedestrians. But, you know, I think when you— if you say the scope of the, the commission would be all of these things, it really points to how many different levels and types of expertise you would need to really do this. And so, and I, I think kind of to summarize what folks are seeing is just One, this is true for firefighters too. I mean, I hear it all the time, like they're trained in one way and then almost all their calls are something else, right? So what that tells us is we're using the wrong tool for all those things.

So I guess I just want to— it's law enforcement and, you know. So, um, I love that Thea just said that. We're going to put this up here, but we're going to transition because we're almost out of time, you guys. We gotta get some decisions made today. Um, so we're gonna transition into— so we've been talking about our feelings.

You guys can keep talking about how we feel about this. I'm not gonna shut that down, but I'd like to transition us into, um, what does this all mean? All right, so if you can— my guess is you can frame what you were going to say into what does this all mean. I thought so, because that's what you guys originally said.

A little context, um, psychology major from your UAA, graduating 2022, um, and a 20-year military vet. And as you can tell, back in law enforcement. It is, uh, really important for all of those personalities that I just described that I continue to be able to interpret that through a Black grandmother and mother of two Black sons, and one who also served. So when I show up to this meeting and Denali says, "We're not making a decision today," that person who likes to get to work feels a little tamped down. But here in Mercedes, try to separate, you know, how you show up into the conversation.

So being on the inside of the bad guys, we are constantly trying to recruit from the communities that are not being represented, but we also know that community fears that space. So how do I get more into that space? How do I get more money to pay for the things to make it that those officers are equipped physically to do that work? The bits and pieces under his jacket that you can't see over there with Chief Case, roughly $3,000 on the fiscal side. Mind.

So then there is— now everyone's admitting they're— we're showing up to calls that have nothing to do with police academy training. We're getting into mental health, all of the societal ills, armed with bullets. So some of the things that another personality of mine wants to deal with is how much has my community gotten to heal? Because we just keep ripping open new wounds. So when does the community see itself doing work on itself?

And then when does this larger multifaceted community get to claim that you have done things that cause the building blocks of the community to crumble. I.e., I'm a mother of a Black son, and I did not put him in law enforcement. I put him in the military.

But it wasn't for the save the nation. It was because I knew that it would get us some benefits and some privileges that I, as a single mother at the time, time would not have been able to do it, right? So there's so many different, um, interpretations of why different people are at the table. And for— I'm not alone in this room wearing multiple hats or getting triggered by what some folks are saying in this room, and knowing that one of my ground rules was that multiple truths can exist at once. So that's my interpretation of this commission meeting, to have an opportunity to understand the weight of what it's claiming it wants to work on.

And we have enough trees dead to know what has worked in the past and what hasn't. But the reimagining part, when I got the first email, was, what are you reimagining? Are you reimagining public safety to tell Chief Case whether he can hire or fire, or the aversion to being advisory because sometimes your advice will not be accepted?

Everything you just said, we're going to put on a sticky note. Can we do that, Cheryl? That's what's next. I loved everything you just said. Nicely done.

Um, but I wasn't kidding about the sticky note part.

You just raised your hand, and we can transition to the sticky note, but I promise I'll bring you the mic at some point here because we have 15 minutes left. Sorry? That's what I want to talk about. Yeah, about— okay, you got it. It's not really on the slides or anything, but when you said we're almost out of time, it suddenly just triggered just a really strong response in me, which is that, like, we're moving along the process We've been meeting for X number of weeks and months.

This process so far has generated one— that I know of— one detailed proposal, which we haven't even begun to vet actually as a group. And I'm just wondering from the point of view of the organizers why we have to, and I don't feel like we're one meeting away from some kind of consensus or even some kind of a decision-making process. What— are we strictly really in that situation where we have one and only one more meeting as a group of citizens who are, you know, giving their time and energy and so on to this, to do this? Is that really a proper timeline, and do we have alternatives? I'm only bringing it up because we're about to end the second from the last meeting and we haven't ever discussed this.

Yes, thank you. Sure, but I am going to ask the group to play along with me on this next step and then come back to that question. Just that this, as far as I understand it, this task force might end at the next meeting. But then the assembly process is going to go forward from there, taking what we come up with and moving it into their process, which is 100% public process. So that's my interpretation of our way.

Thanks, Bea, and thank you for acknowledging that. It's important, and I don't want to pretend that this is easy with 15 minutes left, but I do want to use that 15 minutes the best that we can, and I'd really like to come back to this question after we're done here and ask ourselves what— where we're at. I mean, part of this was we haven't had a chance to actually sit in this forum and have this deliberation, and yet we do have limitations that are just real. So, okay, what are they and how real are they? Uh, sure.

Yeah, I mean, I can tell you that unless there's a change in our contract, you know, our role will be finished, but then the work begins, right? I mean, we know that we're just helping you get this definition So let's see how far we can get. Everyone has sticky notes in their folder, and if you— you don't have to, but we're hoping that most of you will take out a sticky note, and we're actually going to do the interpretive. This way we'll get to hear from everyone, and then we'll start to see some themes. We've already heard themes today, and it might not feel like they're surfacing in an organized way, but definitely they are.

So, um, what does it all mean is the question. So when we think about all those— what do we know, what needs more clarity, what does it mean— sorry, how do we feel, and then what does it mean. We talked a lot about feelings today, and I think it was important for us to have a little bit of space there. So on your sticky note, do your best to write clearly And you can use as many as you want. Okay, so I'm going to stop talking and give everybody about 3 minutes, and you're welcome to come up and put them up here.

Well, if you want to hold them up, our team will come around. Let's just see, see what you come up with.

Does anyone not have seniors?

Hey, hey.

Are there, are there more sticky notes out there?

Okay, any others to come up?

Well, I just read all of them, and if we did have more time— and I'm so sorry we don't— we've got some opportunities I'm seeing some themes. So that was my wish, was that we could get a little bit further and that you all could walk away from here with some themes that were really visual up here that were kind of driven by the sticky notes. But my guess is that you guys are hearing some themes too. And with our final, like, couple of minutes, can I hear from just a couple of you on, like, what are the major themes that you're walking away from here? I think the biggest theme that I'm walking away from here is that the community doesn't trust the police and police don't trust the community to come up with alternatives.

And there's a big proposal here from the DCJ that we haven't heard anything about, and I think that's a shame. Like, I think we should have heard that proposal too. And I would say, having read everything up on the board, both of the things you just said are memes, so nicely done. Any other themes that stand out to you? I see a hand.

I think without transparency and independence, you won't get trust from the people. Well put, Darryl, and also those words are up on the wall as well, so great. Any other themes that are standing out to Public safety is comprehensive and it is multifaceted, and every piece matters in order to affect the others. Nicely done, Mercedes. And those are absolutely, absolutely up on the wall more than once, not just yours.

All right, other teams.

Just sort of think that there's voices that are listening to this process.

Pretty sure I saw that up here. I know it was certainly back here, and I've heard that thing as well. Okay.

Anyone? Uh, please.

As we reimagine policing, we're probably going to have to reimagine a funding source because cost is going to be an issue.

I see cost up there too, so I'm glad you brought it up. All right, another theme? So public safety is, uh, is, uh, first and main. Apologies in this area. Doesn't just involve Officer Bob Schuette.

And so, um, there are layers to this, and it takes time to do the deep dive. All right, I don't know if it's on this particular one, but that was the theme that came up a lot today too. Well, thank you for your patience with the process. Um, we've heard a lot of feedback today, and We do have proposals that our team is certainly referencing as we will be developing draft recommendations that are very high levels to bring back to this group. So will you agree on all of them?

Probably not, but we're going to do our best, and you have our word that we will summarize the intentions that we heard here today and also reference the important work all of the time that went into the proposals that are put on the table and the feedback that we've heard. So with that, we are at time. We have a live poll. Do we have time for that? It's about our time.

Um, how are people doing? Can you stay an extra 2 minutes to do a live poll? We just want to take a temperature of the room, and this is a basic question that many of you already answered And if you don't have a phone and you want somebody to come do this for you, just raise your hand and you can answer the question. But can you tell me the question? Um, I can tell it's— sorry, this is hard to do.

All right, so what is your level of support for the municipality of Anchorage having a public safety advisory commission? Um, so the answer choices are strongly support, somewhat support, neutral, don't support, and strongly don't support. So this isn't a decision, you guys, this is just let's take the temperature in the room. And this is our really our closing activity. Thank you all for making us a priority today.